Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.  

The result was keep. Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 23:18, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma
nn fan mangas--Avsf35 19:34, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're accussing this of being an entry for a fan work, you're wrong. The SEED Club comics are produced by the official Gundam SEED fan club in Japan.--HellCat86 19:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How is something produced by a fan club, official club or not, not a fanwork? NeoChaosX [ talk | contribs ] 19:51, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ....Because the fan club was created by the official creators of SEED and the related merchandise? By the logic the deletion is proposed under, why not delete entries for such things as Star Wars Insider or any Gundam manga? The SEED Club site is even hosted on the official Japanese Gundam SEED site http://www.gundam-seed.net/seed_club/ --HellCat86 19:57, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nominator. Official club or not, fans are just fans. Webcomics get exceptions in some cases, but this is not one of those. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 22:20, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and WP:N. NeoFreak 22:47, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * But it's not made by fans, it's made for fans, just like any other show/OVA/film/manga/merchandise. I'm sorry, whoever is backing this doesn't know what they're talking about.--HellCat86 22:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, want me to show why anyone calling this a fanwork doesn't know what they're talking about? If anyone still calls this a fan work, they obviously have no clue--HellCat86 22:58, 24 September 2006 (UTC) It's very common for popular franchises to have fan manga drawn about them. And it's very common for that manga to be published and to show up on Amazon.co.jp. That doesn't make it notable or mean it needs an article. It is simply one common form of fanfiction, which in Japan is given more recognition by the media companies than it is in America. At best, this might merit a mention in whichever article discusses the fan club as a whole. It certainly does not merit an article of its own. Remember: just because something exists doesn't mean it needs a dedicated article all of its own. &mdash; Haeleth Talk 14:35, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.gundam-seed.net/seed_club/ The official site, on the same domain name and server as Bandai/Sunrise's official Japanese Gundam site.
 * http://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/product/4048538896/sr=1-2/qid=1159138359/ref=sr_1_2/503-0610107-2256725?ie=UTF8&s=books The first official collected volume of this comic.
 * http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN938352 http://www.hlj.com/product/BAN943243 Two examples of SEED Club merchandise, produced by Bandai
 * Keep This is an offical Gundam manga, just a non-continuity humor one. - CNichols 00:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep, per above. Notable.Billy Blythe 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Changing vote to keep. This would never have been a problem if such sources had been included in the first place. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 05:15, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, to be fair, people should know what they're talking about before they back a deletion anyway. A Wiki article shouldn't think for you...--HellCat86 11:07, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Nor should a person have to dig their way through foreign language sites to find information about a subject. Notability must be proven by the writer, not the reader. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article already noted it was an official spin off and was listed as a stub, highlighting that more info was required. It's not my fault if some people get their facts wrong and somehow read "fan club" as "fan work"--HellCat86 20:27, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The article did not prove it. It only claimed to be. You did not include a single source in the original version. Furthermore, it was (and still is) somewhat poorly written. You act as if everyone else should somehow validate your article. That is your job. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 21:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * How am I? 'Stub' clearly implies the article is a work in progress and some amount of general knowledge on the subject should be expected from users. Wikipedia simply gathers knowledge, it doesn't provide it. You just seem to be in a foul mood because you went with the crowd calling for this being deleted and had to retract your initial vote when it was proven the call for deletion was on flimsy grounds. The merchandise and such I already mentioned is mentioned with the article itself. Don't blame me because the creator of this whole debate jumped the gun. If they believed this item was about a fan work, the smart thing to do would have been to ask on the article's discussion page. If it was the case, THEN a vote for deletion should have followed--HellCat86 22:16, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't presume to know my mood. It's annoying. I'm telling you why people tried to delete your article. I retracted my vote as a courtesy because you took the effort to prove your subject notable. I would not have done so otherwise. You do not link to any sources in the article which validate your claims, and you seem to be unaware of WP:V. I suggest you read up. If you continue to make articles as you did this one, expecting others to prove notability for you, then expect more AfDs. Don't start making personal attacks when confronted with your own mistakes. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Confronted with my own mistakes?...why does there have to be a group of people around here who think they can just throw around links to the site's policies then just look down their nose at the rest of us? I've already explained the state of the article. Terribly sorry it doesn't personally please you. I've started a number of other articles on Wikipedia, many of which I've been able to build up myself along with the help of others and have encountered nothing like the attitudes I'm seeing here. Avsf35 jumped the gun. I contributed what I could to the article and took the neccessary steps to highlight it so others who might know more could further improve it. That's the whole point of Wikipedia. I started this article but that doesn't mean I alone am responsible for maintaining it. Don't imply I'm some ignorant slacker when I have a body of contributions that prove otherwise.--HellCat86 23:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Forget it. I honestly don't care. I'm tired of responding when you refuse to listen. You know why this was AfD'd. No one jumped the gun. You created an article that did nothing to assert its importance and it got AfD'd. That was your mistake and no one else's. You are responsible for proving the notability of a subject when you start the article, which you failed to do. Previous contributions have no effect on this fact. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Japan-related deletions.   -- XICOD 06:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Strong delete. Regardless of HellCat86's comments, I'm afraid this does seem to be fan-work, and either way it is non-notable.
 * No, this manga is produced by Bandai, the company that hold the copyright to Gundam, NOT by fans. Ergo, it is an official Gundam product. The fact that Bandai has chosen its fanclub as a channel of distribution is irrelevant. - CNichols 14:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Adding to that, the comics are also distributed in Newtype magazine. Bandai hold any number of official relations with various Japanese magazines; the official SD Musha Gundam mangas, from which they make a long running line of model kits from, are published in Comic BomBom. Both Dengeki Hobby Magazine and Hobby Japan have hosted official content for the various Gundam series, including in recent examples Advance of Zeta and Gundam SEED Astray. Anyone backing the deletion of this article doesn't have their facts straight. I don't see how something produced by the official license owners for a fanclub they started and maintain is somehow fan work. This is just as official as the exclusive webcomic stories StarWars.com publish on their members-only Hyperspace service.--HellCat86 15:17, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Strong keep per hellcats arguments. MarineCorps 17:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletions.   -- Roninbk t c # 22:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep The manga is produced by the same company, as opposed to Dōjinshi or fan fiction. This fact should probably be further clarified within the article. I highly recommend that everybody here read WP:CHILL, as there have been a lot of unnecessarily heated debate on both sides. --Roninbk t c # 23:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, the original text read Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Club Yonkoma is a spin-off Yonkoma from the Mobile Suit Gundam SEED anime. It is a series of parody comics, usually four panels long. The comics are a joint venture between Bandai/Sunrise's official Gundam SEED fan club and Newtype Japan magazine. I personally felt that pointed out the nature of the series and made it clear that they were official. Any suggestions for improvements, since that doesn't seem to have worked?--HellCat86 23:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, take a look at the Infobox I just added. If you would be so kind as to further flush out the details listed in the infobox, (I would myself, but I cannot read Japanese,) then that would go a long way towards establishing why this article should be kept --Roninbk t c # 00:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Keep. Manga produced by Bandai are notable for inclusion, this is not fan-work.  Yamaguchi先生 23:37, 29 September 2006


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.